Why the French Revolution was the ultimate cause of our problems

[Deleted member 88]

Equality! Fraternity! Solidarity! Liberty!

And now insidiously equity.

These concepts are what the modern world is supposed to believe.

These ideas found their fruition in 1789 with the French Revolution. The overthrow of the monarchy and the establishment of the first French Republic.

It is my firm contention that this event was disastrous for the west and for mankind as a whole.

Why is this Lord Invictus?

Well glad you asked!

Firstly it was built on a lie.

Fraternity is absolute dogshit. Men are not brothers nor is their unity desirable or wise. Also it’s false in real life. It’s basically kumbaya though the latter makes a better song.

This is related to the modern(more inclusive) concept of solidarity. I have no solidarity with a peasant in Venezuela or a Russian oligarch. Or a homosexual activist from San Francisco. Just indifference and some measure of hate.

Equality. This is the greatest lie in human history. Men are unequal. God and nature made them so. He made the great and the small. The rich and the poor. The righteous and the filthy. It is an insult to my dignity to be considered of equal worth to some deranged drug addict who dropped dead outside a liquor shop. It isn’t nice to say, but I am superior to such creatures. To such under men.

Liberty-the French Revolution was in all regards liberty towards vice. And liberty to throw your life and country down the drain.

From these concepts were broadened to include Inclusivity. For example women’s rights or really any thing that makes something less exclusive. The more inclusive something is-the less of value it is. It is diluted. A party of close friends that is intimate, enjoyable, and memorable becomes cold and forgettable when every class acquaintance is invited on the grounds of being “inclusive”. To be inclusive is to be more and more mediocre.

The French Revolution upset nature. And now it has come full circle with the deification of the weak and the slave. Which is the essence of PC and grievance politics. The righteous and superior must grovel and submit to the inferior. To the unworthy!

There is a direct line from the storming of the Bastille to the Bolshevik Revolution to the BLM riots and “Equity” protocols of today.

They were all inversions of a natural and righteous order.

The inferior rose up and wouldn’t do what they were told. This led to strife and confusion.

Feminism, LGBT rights, and the like all have their origins in the idea of human equality.

This is why as conservatives we must reject the French Revolution on principle. It was a calamity.

And we must pray for and seek to prepare for a return to a healthy and righteous inequality.

In our families, communities and nations.

And we must seek to prevent the wretched masses and the undeserving and envious from ever rising again...through whatever means are required.

If we fail, then the French Revolution will be completed and all beauty, virtue, and glory will become in distinct from ugliness, vice, and shame. Which is the final goal of the left.

 

[LifeisTiresome]

Are you a neo-reactionary, @Lord Invictus ?

 

[S'task]

Equality. This is the greatest lie in human history. Men are unequal. God and nature made them so. He made the great and the small. The rich and the poor. The righteous and the filthy. It is an insult to my dignity to be considered of equal worth to some deranged drug addict who dropped dead outside a liquor shop. It isn’t nice to say, but I am superior to such creatures. To such under men.

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are the rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Firstly, under what system are you claiming to be better than "some deranged drug addict"? Because I can tell you right away, you're not operating under any system that has been operative in the Western World since the 5th century or so, as a core component of Christianity, which is the religious to claim to espouse, is that all are equal before God. This is most explicitly laid out here:

What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. As it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”
“Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
ruin and misery mark their ways,
and the way of peace they do not know.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

This idea is also echoed here:

So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

I would strongly suggest that in somehow seeing yourself as better than others, you are not, in fact, just rejecting modern Progressivism or even the French Revolution, rather, you are in fact rejecting Western Civilization itself as the religion core to the values of Western Civilization explicitly laid out the idea of the Equality of humanity long, LONG before the Enlightenment.

 

[Harlock]

Nothing wrong with fraternity, the bible is always calling us brothers and extolling us to just get along. It's a concept as old as time trying to bring about cooperation instead of combat. It is a well picked term really, you may not always like your brother, may even angrily disagree more than once, but there is a lot that binds you together and I can see why philosophers over time would try to echo that.
Working together is better than falling apart, teams succeed, one man alone does not build a skyscraper. United we stand and all that.

Equality, I think you are mixing that up with homogeny. It doesn't mean all are the same, it means we all start from the same place. Course that isn't true in reality, some are born into better circumstances than others, but the idea of everyone getting the same fair start and not be consigned to misery because you were born to some peasant farmers is a fair one. And one most modern societies at least try for.
You can in theory have the same opportunities as a prince, the same access to education, services and career. Doesn't exactly work out but at least its a lot closer than 1700s France It is an improvement.

Liberty speaks for itself, the overthrow of tyranny and oppression, the freedom to seek out your own opportunities and direction. Took the French a while to get that one working, swapping one tyrant for others, but the Americans did a pretty good job at the first try.
It was nothing to do with debauchery, there was plenty of it before and plenty after, it was about freedom from a corrupt and tyrannical system.

And as for inclusivity being bad, that as more people ar einvolved th eless something is worth? I disagree, there is nothing quite like standing with 50,000 people cheering on your team in a cup final. Or on an even greater scale standing with tens of millions in celebration of your country, it is after all the root of patriotism.
And of course women's rights was a good thing Limiting freedoms based on things you have no power over is rather unethical.


The French Revolution was a good idea handled badly. You could see it as a dark mirror of the American Revolution, the desires were not dissimilar but France was in a more extreme position with far greater and more entrenched inequalities. It also managed to get invaded a few times during the revolution which probably didn't help make people more even tempered and relaxed when handling things.
Ultimately though the concepts are sound. The French botched a lot of it but figured it out in the end, life did improve for the majority of their people and continues to do so. It also scared most of the other big European powers into reforming their own societies to remove their own inequalities and prevent a similar revolution.

We are all created equal, what happens after is up to you, your strengths and talents, but we all begin the same. We all deserve freedom, equality under the law and fairness in all things. Finally we may be called brothers because like family what unites us is greater than that which divides us.
These things are easily forgotten or misappropriated, but fundamentally millions have died to acquire and defend these basic foundations of civilisation. Abandon them and you abandon the future.

 

[LifeisTiresome]

And of course women's rights was a good thing

You mean female supremacy cause thats what Feminism is all about at its heart.

This is what feminists preach:

In her early career, Gearhart took part in a series of seminars at San Francisco State University, where feminist scholars were critically discussing issues of rape, slavery, and the possibility of nuclear annihilation. Gearhart outlines a three-step proposal for female-led social change from her essay, "The Future–-If There Is One–-is Female":

I) Every culture must begin to affirm a female future.

II) Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture.

III) The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.

Gearhart does not base this radical proposal on the idea that men are innately violent or oppressive, but rather on the "real danger is in the phenomenon of male-bonding, that commitment of groups of men to each other whether in an army, a gang, a service club, a lodge, a monastic order, a corporation, or a competitive sport." Gearhart identifies the self-perpetuating, male-exclusive reinforcement of power within these groups as corrosive to female-led social change. Thus, if "men were reduced in number, the threat would not be so great and the placement of species responsibility with the female would be assured."

Gearhart, a dedicated pacifist, recognized that this kind of change could not be achieved through mass violence. On the critical question of how women could achieve this, Gearhart argues that it is by women's own capacity for reproduction that the ratio of men to women can be changed though the technologies of cloning or ovular merging, both of which would only produce female births. She argues that as women take advantage of these reproductive technologies, the sex ratio would change over generations.[14]

This is women's rights. This is feminism. All the trans and drag kids and boys pumped with esterogen is cause of feminism and women's rights.

 

[Harlock]

You mean female supremacy cause thats what Feminism is all about at its heart.

I agree that is a bad thing. I support women having the vote, being able to work in jobs if they have the capability (without any bending of the rules) though I do think society needs good mothers more than career workers.

sadly these freedoms, indeed most freedoms also require responsibility in my view and what we see today is a result of insufficient responsibility. Without that they can easily be abused.

I do think the way forward is not to remove said freedoms but to enforce responsibility. This isn't a job for government I think but for society at large. Easier said than done of course.

 

[ShieldWife]

You make some good points. I don't agree that the French Revolution was the source of all of our problems, because plenty of the bad ideas that influenced the French Revolution originated long before and many of the the terrible ideas that are plaguing modern society happened long after the French Revolution. It was certainly a major event, but really just one major milepost on the road to destruction.

I would agree that equality is a terrible idea. In fact, I would say that it's nonsensical, mystical even. So much so that it's advocates can scarcely even define it in a coherent way, while simultaneous insisting that it's the most important value ever. The devotion to equality generally just causes hatred and suffering as people seek to redress supposed inequalities.

As for liberty and fraternity, I guess it depends on how those words are used. It's my opinion that society should be more a community, where a nation arises from a shared sense of identity and shared values, culture, and heritage. Like an extended family in a sense. In losing those qualities, I think that modern societies have lost some of the most important values that lies at the foundation of a civilization. As for liberty, that certainly has some benefits, and if you don't think so, imagine a society which does not value liberty which also doesn't like what you have to say. Liberty is a good thing as long as the people can maintain some level of virtue and if they can't do that, then they are unlikely to have liberty for long anyway.

 

[The Name of Love]

We have to ask though: why did the French Revolution happen? How could the French people just suddenly go nuts? Is anybody asking this?

The answer goes back to medieval politics, specifically, the long-standing fights between the Church, the monarchy, and the feudal nobility. See, the nobles were basically a collection of unruly warlords, and the king was just a noble made the first among equals. He would constantly get undermined by them, and medieval power was pretty decentralized because of this. The king, not wanting to be overthrown, starts using his position to try and undermine the nobility and the Church by uplifting the common men. The political ideal at the time was a "pure" monarchy, an absolutist state.

The case study for this was the seventeenth-century king of France, King Louis XIV, aka "the Sun King." After nearly being assassinated by the nobles one too many times growing up, he decided to up and get rid of them. Seemed like a good idea at the time. "Getting rid of these people trying to kill me and replacing them with people who won't try to kill me" seems like a recipe for political peace. One problem: one man can't do the jobs of a ton of nobles all at once. Solution: create a massive civil service full of bureaucrats in your employ and have them replace the nobility in doing their jobs. You can even say you're doing this in the name of freedom and equality. Brilliant! And the nobility had no choice but to follow along, since they did just lose to Louis XIV in a civil war. But once he had them, he was able to entice them and their sons with all the decadent hedonism the Versailles could offer. By the time the Sun King died, everything in the Kingdom revolved around him. "I am the State," indeed.

Fast forward to the late 18th century. The king is still an absolute monarch, but he can't rule the country alone. He needs the bureaucracy to run things. The civil service Louis XIV created now effectively runs the country. And they start thinking dangerous things like "why do we need this 'king' guy, anyways? Why can't we be in charge?" It didn't take long for an opportunity to come up. Famine was an occurrence inherent to Malthusian society, and had happened cyclically for hundreds of years. All they had to do was spin something that has come and gone every few centuries as being King Louis XVI's fault somehow, and boom! Instant pretext for revolution. All the French Revolution did was formalize the what had been reality for the previous thirty years.

We can see that communist revolutions tend to occur in countries that had undergone centralization under a monarch: the ancien regime of France, the Russian Tsardom, the Chinese Empire, etc. I believe there's a lesson to be learned from this: to prevent communist takeover, we ought to have a system where the Center of society doesn't feel the need to control literally everything. Otherwise, you end up with communism.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

I would point out that equality, taken in context, means equality under the law, as opposed to a system of law under which elite classes such as royalty, nobility, and clergy are granted exclusive legal rights and privileges solely because of their membership in those groups. That concept of equality in that sense is far from unique to the French Revolution; it is at the heart of our own Constitution, and of Western democracy as a whole.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

The conceit of the democrat and of slavery is thus: If a man you encounter is weak, exploit him, simple, trick him, aged, abuse him.
That one should not torment those inferior to oneself for personal gain is a notion incomprehensible to the Democrat.


Men are equal not in form, nor in intellect, nor in morality, but in right.

 

[The Name of Love]

I would point out that equality, taken in context, means equality under the law, as opposed to a system of law under which elite classes such as royalty, nobility, and clergy are granted exclusive legal rights and privileges solely because of their membership in those groups. That concept of equality in that sense is far from unique to the French Revolution; it is at the heart of our own Constitution, and of Western democracy as a whole.

Funnily enough, the idea of equality under the law in the French Revolution was just as destructive as the idea of equality of outcome in the Communist Revolutions of the twentieth century. Weird, huh?

 

[Deleted member 88]

Let’s take the concept of privilege as an example.

White privilege, male privilege, etc...

Now for a lot of people growing up-staying up late, going to parties, video game access, etc... was something their parents called a privilege not a right. Driving a car is a privilege not a right.

The whole basis for modern guilt politics especially as it pertains to race is that privilege is seen as an inherently bad thing. The implication of privilege is that it is not earned. And thus not deserved.

Privilege ideally should be something to cherish and protect. Because privileges are not given. They are earned. Either by your merit or the merit of your ancestors.

The idea of merit and privilege contrasting or being at odds is the basis of equality of outcome thinking. So let’s talk race. I’m white. I have resources black kids might not. I might even be able to consider myself the norm. So fucking what?

My privilege is in my interest and so it is worth preserving and cherishing. Unfairness is a fact of life, not something to apologize for. If you have an advantage over someone it is the height of slave morality to apologize and kneel at his level to be equal.

What could be more unnatural?

As for the Declaration of Independence, as I’ve said in anecdotes before-my dad once said “Thomas Jefferson ought to have been horsewhipped for writing that”

Because it’s a lie. It’s not true. Human equality is not a thing in the Bible. The righteous and the wicked are not equal categories. One is superior to the other.

If your superior you should not feel shy or bashful about proclaiming your superiority.

The reason why conservatives lose so much is because they fundamentally believe in the French Revolution. They believe in equality. Despite it being demonstrably untrue.

If you accept the premises of your enemy your going to always be on the retreat.

Empathy and compassion, and too much sympathy for the undeserving has been the death of western civilization. And has allowed those who would not dare have spoken aloud in a healthy society to rule over us.

When I see some fat degenerate or homosexual lecture on morality I become angry. When I see some viciously anti white activist explain why I should “check my privilege” I bite my tongue until it bleeds, when I hear the trite nonsense “equality feels like oppression” I fume with fury.

Our civilization is dying because it believes that human beings are equal and interchangeable.

We need to restore inequality. And ensure the inferiors never question their superiors again.

 

[The Name of Love]

Let’s take the concept of privilege as an example.

White privilege, male privilege, etc...

Now for a lot of people growing up-staying up late, going to parties, video game access, etc... was something their parents called a privilege not a right. Driving a car is a privilege not a right.

The whole basis for modern guilt politics especially as it pertains to race is that privilege is seen as an inherently bad thing. The implication of privilege is that it is not earned. And thus not deserved.

Privilege ideally should be something to cherish and protect. Because privileges are not given. They are earned. Either by your merit or the merit of your ancestors.

The idea of merit and privilege contrasting or being at odds is the basis of equality of outcome thinking. So let’s talk race. I’m white. I have resources black kids might not. I might even be able to consider myself the norm. So fucking what?

My privilege is in my interest and so it is worth preserving and cherishing. Unfairness is a fact of life, not something to apologize for. If you have an advantage over someone it is the height of slave morality to apologize and kneel at his level to be equal.

What could be more unnatural?

As for the Declaration of Independence, as I’ve said in anecdotes before-my dad once said “Thomas Jefferson ought to have been horsewhipped for writing that”

Because it’s a lie. It’s not true. Human equality is not a thing in the Bible. The righteous and the wicked are not equal categories. One is superior to the other.

If your superior you should not feel shy or bashful about proclaiming your superiority.

The reason why conservatives lose so much is because they fundamentally believe in the French Revolution. They believe in equality. Despite it being demonstrably untrue.

If you accept the premises of your enemy your going to always be on the retreat.

Empathy and compassion, and too much sympathy for the undeserving has been the death of western civilization. And has allowed those who would not dare have spoken aloud in a healthy society to rule over us.

When I see some fat degenerate or homosexual lecture on morality I become angry. When I see some viciously anti white activist explain why I should “check my privilege” I bite my tongue until it bleeds, when I hear the trite nonsense “equality feels like oppression” I fume with fury.

Our civilization is dying because it believes that human beings are equal and interchangeable.

We need to restore inequality. And ensure the inferiors never question their superiors again.

Would you be willing to accept that you yourself would probably be an inferior in the society that you're trying to create?

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

Would you be willing to accept that you yourself would probably be an inferior in the society that you're trying to create?

No one who argues such things can even conceive of the boot on their own back, thats why when it lands there, they do nothing but scream incoherently and wait for death.

 

[The Name of Love]

No one who argues such things can even conceive of the boot on their own back, thats why when it lands there, they do nothing but scream incoherently and wait for death.

I argue for inequality, and I can conceive of myself being forced to live as the equivalent of a serf and be satisfied with it. If you think that a system of inequality is just, how you end up materially shouldn't really invalidate the theory, now would it?

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

I argue for inequality, and I can conceive of myself being forced to live as the equivalent of a serf and be satisfied with it. If you think that a system of inequality is just, how you end up materially shouldn't really invalidate the theory, now would it?

I think it's a little disingenuous to boil down everything he said to "Inequality is fine"

 

[Deleted member 88]

Would you be willing to accept that you yourself would probably be an inferior in the society that you're trying to create?

No one wants to be a peasant, and I don’t have illusions I’d be king. I do think I deserve to have a higher place than the human refuse that boldly proclaims it’s my equal.

 

[Harlock]

What happens to those deemed inferior? How would any edicts be enforced?

 

[Deleted member 88]

The class system would be de jure and enforced by custom and law.

 

[Harlock]

how would you envision the different class roles and privileges in such a society? By that I mean are there many levels, do people have the ability to change class, what are the criteria, stuff like that.

I'm a writer, I do a lot of world building so these things interest me